The Conservatives Did What? Please, Not While I'm Eating!

John Kenneth Galbraith, once said of Richard Nixon:   "Our nation stands at a fork in the political road. In one direction lies a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland. America is something different."

Lawrence Martin in his book Harperland, writes:  " [A]mong this breed of new conservative was a different temperament. It was an attitude not readily found in the traditional Canadian middle-of-the-road parties, but more common to a strain of American Republicans. It was a current of bitterness, an anger ..."

David Emerson, the Liberal who crossed the floor for a cabinet position in the Harper government, admitted that he "couldn't fathom the intense level of acrimony. He had never seen this kind of thing with the Liberals. But with Harper and his men, it was woven deep."  He spoke of them as "viscerally hating their political opposition", saying that "Sometimes it was just startling to me."

Former Liberal MP Keith Martin, who also served in both parties, described the Conservatives as politicians who had been in an environment "that has bred a hatred". (Harperland p.3)

It's as though they can't help themselves.

Historian Richard Perlstein said of Nixon that he was a "serial collector of resentments", and those resentments created the kind of visceral politics that Nixon engaged in.  Says Perlstein, "By the end of the 1960s, Nixonland came to emcompass the entire political culture of the U.S.  It would define it, in fact, for the next fifty years." (Nixonland p. 46)

You would think that with Harper winning his majority, he might try to play nice.  In fact, didn't many journalists suggest that the only reason Harper was so combative and controlling was because he had a minority?

We learned recently of prank phone calls in Liberal, Irwin Cotler's riding of Mount Royal.  The calls originated with a company called Campaign Research, used by many Conservative candidates during the last federal campaign.

Blogger Sixth Estate reminds us that Campaign Research was founded by several Conservative insiders, including  Nick Kouvalis, the Rob Ford election aide from Toronto, and Aaron Wudrick, the Conservative campaign manager who was caught a few years ago calling for the creation of Conservative “shell organizations” and “front groups” on university campuses.  He worked for Peter Braid.

The Conservatives have finally admitted that they were behind the phone calls.

There is nothing illegal in what they did, just slimy.

We have had five years of this kind of politicking and it's growing weary.  Can we expect another five years, or worse, as in the case of Nixon's influence, fifty?

I would much rather try to eat looking at the picture of the men at the top of the page, than try to eat, listening to this story.  It comes down to who are the biggest asses.

From Joseph Mitchell to Rob Ford to Herman Cain. They Just Don't Get It.

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

In 1960, the city council of Newburgh, New York, looking to clean up the slums created by migrant workers, who made the area a permanent home, hired Joseph McDowell Mitchell as City Manager.  Mitchell had earned a reputation as a hard nose "fixer" and he immediately ordered a survey of their relief program.  Thirty borderline cases were cut off and the food relief allotment reduced, to help pay for snow removal.

Then concluding that the city was too generous to the terminally lazy, Mitchell drafted thirteen measures in an attempt to not only limit welfare expenditures, but also drive the mostly black unemployed out of town.

They included a three-month limitation on relief payments, except for the physically handicapped and the aged; unmarried mothers who bore any more illegitimate children would be cut off from assistance; whenever possible, food and rent vouchers would be issued instead of cash; able-bodied males on relief would have to work 40 hours each week for the city building-maintenance department and newcomers who settled in Newburgh without specific job offers would be limited to one week of relief payments. (1)

However, the State Board of Social Welfare, which reimbursed Newburgh for 33% of its relief costs, concluded that at least two provisions—the three-month cutoff, and the discrimination against unwed mothers—violated both state and federal standards.

When the national media picked up the story, alerted by Mitchell himself (2), there was overwhelming support for his program, and the more that the media denounced Mitchell, the stronger the support.  He made it OK to hate poor people.

Encouraged, Newburgh's rising star, began grandstanding, challenging the State's position and making life even more miserable for those barely living. 

In one publicity stunt, he sent letters to all welfare recipients stating "Your welfare check is being held for you at the police department.  Please report to the police department and pick up your check there."  A reporter from the local newspaper described the scene:

At 2:15 P.M. yesterday there were approximately 60 persons standing in a Y-shaped line at police headquarters waiting for their [welfare] checks. They were interrogated in a small, drab back room which ordinarily serves as a communications center and fingerprinting room. Each applicant was asked to produce proper identification. They were questioned about their marital status, the number of their dependents, their address, and when they last worked. (2)

In other words, they were treated like common criminals.  The Republicans took notice, including Barry Goldwater, who sent Mitchell a personal note, applauding the Newburgh program "as refreshing as the clear air of Arizona ... I would like to see every city adopt the plan. I don't like to see my taxes paid for children born out of wedlock." (1)

Thirty years later conservatives were still extolling Mitchell, despite the fact that he would eventually lose his job, not for his Draconian welfare clean up, but for taking bribes.

According to Sam Roberts in a 1992 piece for the New York Times:

When Mr. Mitchell was driven into political oblivion from his job as City Manager of Newburgh, N.Y., leaders of the welfare-rights movement heaved a collective sigh of relief. Fully 30 years later, though, he haunts the national welfare debate that he briefly dominated ... What is so striking about the 13 welfare regulations he sought to impose three decades ago is not how Draconian they seem in retrospect, but how many of them have been adopted, proposed or rationally discussed in recent months by Republicans and even than a few Democrats.

Before Mr. Mitchell's regulations were voided by the State Supreme Court in 1962, they transformed Newburgh from an obscure Hudson River city of 31,000 into a national symbol of revolt against Federally mandated welfare programs, benefits that critics maintained redistributed wealth from productive taxpayers to an expanding and parasitic dependent class. (4)

What Mitchell's crusade accomplished  was the idea that "it is a suckers game to spend one's money on the weak element in society."

The evidence displayed during the Newburgh controversy that many good Americans who contribute regularly to their Community Chest, donate their clothing to flood victims, and sponsor Christmas parties for orphans scorn those on relief shocked many welfare officials secure in their semi- private world of forms and statistics. A large segment of the public despises, even hates the poor. (2)

And neoconservatives have been exploiting this hatred for decades.  Mike Harris built it into his platform in Ontario, secure in the belief that his overhaul of the welfare system could proceed with little public opposition.  In fact, like Mitchell, he had many fans, and the more the progressives complained, the stronger the support for the Harris government.

When FDR implemented the New Deal, critics claimed that people didn't want to work, and relief payments would only exacerbate unemployment.  He proved them wrong.  In Ontario, many people on welfare voted for Harris because they thought that his tough stand meant that he would find them the jobs they were unable to get on their own.  What they found instead, was that they were cut off if they were able to work, despite the fact that the unemployment rate hindered their ability to work, in the same way that a physical handicap might.

When Harris was asked about the rise in the use of foodbanks, he shrugged and said that it was a good organization, and that he and his wife had just dropped off a bag of groceries.

When his government released a monthly food plan for those whose benefits had been slashed, Harris justified it by saying that he knew what it was like to live on beans and tuna.  His embarrassed parents told the press that Mikey's silver spoon had never so much as touched a bean.

The cartoon at the top of the page is from a 1944 book by B.A. Trestail: Stand Up and Be Counted, written to discredit the CCF (now the NDP) and State Socialism.  It was hyperbolic, but written at the time when the conservative movement was getting started, and the doctrine of individual responsibility, was being chiseled into their stone tablet.

And yet it is not unlike ads being used by neoconservatives today.

Republican presidential hopeful, Herman Cain, when speaking of the Occupy Wall Street movement, suggests that if people would just work harder, they too could be among the top 1%.

If all it took was hard work; labourers, teachers, nurses, food service workers, construction workers, bricklayers, police officers, fire fighters, social workers, paramedics, bus drivers, truck drivers,  et al, would all be billionaires!

Rob Ford's father was in Mike Harris's caucus, and his son has developed a similar attitude, as mayor of Toronto.  Currently, he is threatening to gut union contracts, even training managers to operate heavy equipment.  Joseph Mitchell may have tested our commitment to social justice, but Ford's initiative could backfire, if it means that traffic in Toronto is brought to a standstill, or garbage lines the streets.  People like Don Cherry may say "I love what yous guys 'r doin'", but others may take a different view.

A report released in the United States, shows that 45 million U.S. citizens are now on food stamps and 1 in 15 Americans are living well below the poverty line.  And there is not only a growing gap between rich and poor, but also between young and old.  There is little out there for people graduating from college or university.

Does Cain really believe that they just need to work a little harder? And how will this impact future generations?  Socialism may not be the enemy of capitalism.  Capitalism will kill itself, if this is the best it can do for those living under it.

B.A. Trestail used cartoons to get his message across in several pamphlets and books, so maybe we need to develop neocon cartoons and joke books.  They provide so much good material.  Their bumper sticker slogans have not changed in more than half a century, so we just need to tweak a few classics.

Like the neoconservative who was undergoing surgery, and worried about the lasting affects of the anaesthetic.  He asked his doctor: "How long after I take this will I be able to think clearly and intelligently?", to which the doctor replied: "I think you are expecting too much of the anaesthetic."

Sources:

1. New York: The Welfare City, Time Magazine, July 28, 1961

2. The Despised Poor: Newburgh's War on Welfare, By Joseph P. Ritz, Beacon Press, 1966

3. Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, By Rick Perlstein, Nation Books, 2001, ISBN: 0-8090-2858-1, p. 131-133

4. METRO MATTERS; Spirit of Newburgh Past Haunts Political Present, By Sam Roberts, The New York Times, March 09, 1992

Will Rob Ford Put an End to Blissful Ignorance?

On February 15, 1983, the New York Times ran a headline: Reagan Misstatements Getting Less Attention.

Ronald Reagan was not only the first American President to bring the Religious Right into his administration, but he also launched an era of stupid in politics.

The man dubbed "The Great Communicator" could barely string two coherent sentences together, and after spending three years trying to make some sense of his ramblings, the media had clearly given up.

I have to laugh at how the Right have now canonized him, but during his tenure he was never that popular. I think his highest polling was right after he was shot.

Unfortunately "idiots" is now a term often used to describe the Republicans, as they've capitalized on incomprehension, and it hasn't hurt them one bit.

Their esoteric boys club has learned that there is a fortune to be made in the mining of ignorance.

Glenn Beck is not a moron, he just played one on TV.

When Stephen Harper's Reform Party had its first real political success in 1993, we were shell shocked with their constant firing of racial slurs and half witticisms.  The Toronto Sun called them "a bunch of dung kicking rednecks".  Now the Sun is among their strongest supporters, pitching the dung they once hoped to duck.

And they have cleverly made the reaction to stupidity, the story, instead of the actual stupidity.

Sun TV often runs a banner reading "We're on your side".  Those "leftist elitist pinkos" don't understand you, but we do.  Then they run to their own elitist friends and say "watch the puppets dance".  Both groups come away with a feeling of superiority.

Neoconservatism 101.

Which brings us to Toronto mayor Rob Ford.  When he first appeared on the scene he created quite a sensation.  Acting as though he would be more comfortable in Animal House than City Hall, he became the favourite of Canadian conservatives.  The more we "lefties" sounded the alarm, the more popular he was.

From Jim Flaherty to Tim Hudak, they couldn't wait to have their photo taken with this new iconic symbol of absurdity.  Stephen Harper touted him around the campaign trail, and the two are now BFFs.

However, they may have a problem.

It would appear that Torontonians have awakened to the fact that there is a reason why you don't elect someone like Rob Ford to run the largest city in Canada.  His foolishness was not an act.  He's really a fool.

According to Royson James in the Star:

His political honeymoon long over, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has lost the public’s confidence. And now, he’s about to lose council’s as well.  The Ford revolution may be aborted before it takes root.

Torontonians are not impressed with Ford’s confrontational style, his lone-wolf approach to leadership and his threats to gut city services after guaranteeing during the election that he’d cut the “gravy” and not cut a single service.

His poll numbers are slipping fast, and in the middle of a provincial election, where Toronto is key, will this hurt Tim Hudak?  Memories of Mike Harris's slash and burn policies, and broken promises, are already proving to be a hindrance. 

And Hudak has been playing the stupid card with his "chain gang" musings and attacks on "foreigners".

If you've been following the Republican debates, you would have to think that they have finally hit bottom.  Cheers when contender Rick Perry stated with pride, the number of people he sent to death, and refrains of "let him die", when a scenario was presented to Ron Paul of a young man in a coma with no health insurance.

Has Canada's new conservative movement finally hit bottom with Ford?

I'd like to think so, but I'm not so sure.  There is now an arrogance in the ignorance that is driving this movement.  They could never handle bliss.  They're just too damned angry. An anger fuelled by the New Right.

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."  Saul Bellow (Canadian-born writer and winner of both the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes) 

Rob Ford Wants to Put Back Pictures of Queen in Toronto Public Buildings

The Queen's image has been retouched and will also appear on Toronto Subway Tokens.

When in Doubt, Blame the Poor

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has responded to the rioting in London over his budget, by blaming parents and kids who live in social housing. He promises to evict, and allow landlords to evict these "criminals" to teach them a lesson.

Across the country, they are listening.

Several councils - including Manchester, Wandsworth and Salford - have said they will take action to evict tenants if they are found to be involved in rioting.

Ravi Govindia, the leader of Wandsworth Council, said: "People who live in council homes should be under no illusions about the fate that awaits them if they are found to have been involved in Monday night's destruction and thuggery."

Poor people protest actions to make them poorer, and they are being punished by being thrown into the street.

Cameron makes Margaret Thatcher look like Mother Theresa. His critics were right when they said that he would pander to the rich. A prep boy who has no idea how many are forced to live.

Community leaders are right when they say:

Regarding the cause of the riots, community leaders say inequality, cuts to public services by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government and youth unemployment fed into the violence in London, Birmingham, Manchester and other multi-ethnic cities.

Already volatile with the English Defense League attacking Muslims, there could be a small civil war. And like Rob Ford in Toronto, one of the places where Cameron plans to cut, is on policing. But not to worry:

Defending planned police funding cuts against criticism from opposition Labour leader Ed Miliband, Cameron proposed more police powers ...

"More police powers". That worked so well at the G-20 in Toronto.

In Philadelphia, young rioters have also taken to the streets, prompting curfews and other measures. Most of the rioters are black youth, but as many are saying, this is not about race. It's about the growing gap between the "have" and "have nots".

The by-product of neoconservatism.

In Philadelphia they are targeting upscale dining and entertainment venues. One woman almost choked when her diamond earring fell into her Foie gras.

In Toronto, Rob Ford is taking preemptive measures, by also reducing the police force, while making threats of what will happen if you oppose him.

His sidekick, Giorgio Mammoliti, claims that any dissenters will be deemed to be "Communists", and he is already sniffing them out.

I think Ford would love nothing better than an all out riot in Toronto. He and his new BFF, Stephen Harper, would probably host a Toga Party, where they'll watch the mayhem on a wide-screen TV, while engaging in a food fight.

Sorry for all those not old enough to remember the cult classic, Animal House, but for those who do, be honest. Does Rob Ford not remind you of John Belushi's "Bluto" Blutarsky?

I keep expecting him to appear in a Toga with a wreath of vines on his head.

Mammoliti makes a perfect "Stork", suspected of having brain damage, and Stephen Harper a shoe in to play the clumsy "Flounder".

Only now all grown up (sort of), they prefer more powerful ammunition. A spoonful of mashed potatoes, thrown at the poor, will only invoke accusations of pandering to the hungry from their neocon friends. It would reek of Communism, for sure.

How do you like neoconservatism so far?

So What Does a Communist Smell Like?

Just when you thought the neocons couldn't get any nuttier, with Brian Lilley of Fox News North calling the Ottawa Press Gallery Communist sympathisers, and Tea Party's Ben Shapiro believing that Sesame Street was a pinko indoctrination of children; Toronto City Councilor, Giorgio Mammoliti, is on a hunt for Communists, who according to him, would be anyone opposing Mayor Rob Ford's budget cuts.

He's started a Facebook page: Save the City. Support the Ford Administration, which has just over a thousand "red hunters". (I wonder if the Ford Motor Co. knows that they are using their logo?)

If you want to know how to hunt down a Communist though, apparently they give off an odour of vodka and borscht. Who knows?

But Mammoliti swears that he'll sniff them out.

"... I will be monitoring their comments,” he said, “and if I get a smell of communism, they’re off the page.” Asked by a laughing reporter how he would smell communism, Mammoliti laughed and said, “Only Mammoliti has that keen sense of smell.”

Clearly the only sense he still has that's working.

What is the endgame for these people? Do they really hope to recreate a "red scare"?

When the Neoconservatives claimed that they wanted to take us back to the 1950s, they weren't kidding. Joseph McCarthy lives again.

What next, book burning?

Of course, Ford plans to close down the libraries in Toronto, which will give Mammoliti's nose a rest. Far too many subversive texts.

This red baiter also claims to support only those who truly work for a living. Don Cherry told Fox News North that university professors had never worked a day in their lives.

So who else would be on the list of non-workers?

Teachers? Social workers? Nurses?

When Tony Clement was in the Mike Harris government he attacked nurses with a vengeance. Stockwell Day did the same when with Ralph Klein in Alberta.

Do YOU have a real job?

It's funny, when I wrote of my ordeal at a Harper rally in Kingston during the last campaign, when I was finally able to get to my car, I noticed that on the front seat I had a copy of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, that I had just picked up at a library sale.

I also own a copy of Das Kapital.

Can I expect a hard rap on the door? Someone sniffing me when I walk down the street?

I think these people are going to "crazy" themselves out. At least I hope so.

In the U.S. people are already turning off the Tea Party nonsense, since their obvious involvement with the "debt crisis" fiasco.

And we see what is happening in the UK, in reaction to their austerity budget, against the backdrop of a multi-million dollar royal wedding.

The future is looking bleak.

A Neocon Barbeque Cooks up a Plate of Ignorance

If you are wondering what Stevie is up to this summer, besides bombing for oil, wonder no more. He's cooking up neocon burgers, hold the lettuce, with his buddy Rob Ford.

I hope their insurance covers having both those men at the same event. Talk about high risk.

Harper is praising Ford for "cleaning up" something that wasn't really messy in the first place. But it soon will be.

Ford plans to close the libraries (can't have people reading. They might get ideas), sell the zoo and cut back on police. This after campaigning on putting more cops on the beat.

From an interview with the Globe's editorial board during his campaign:

Question: Do you honestly believe that adding police officers is a good use of money when the crime rate is dropping?

Ford: "I don’t think we can ever have enough police officers. Do you want 22 extra politicians ... or do you want 100 police officers? And a majority of police have said, I’d rather have 100 police officers. I truly believe that we can run this city with 22 politicians".

Neocons don't need politicians, only salesmen, because everything will be sold. Everything. If Tim Hudak helps to create the perfect storm in Ontario, there will be nothing left.

What little Mike Harris left us with, will be gone. Ford's father was a Harris MPP, so he learned from the master.

Yesterday, the big topic of conversation was that the interim federal NDP leader, Nycole Turmel, was a card carrying member of the Bloc.

This on top of learning that several new NDP MPs are Quebec sovereignists and that Jack Layton had promised that if he was ever prime minister he would repeal the Clarity Act.

Harper made a rare public appearance to state that the leader of a federal party should be committed to Canada.

This from a man who has erased our borders and sold us off to the Americans a piece at a time.

So even if every single NDP was a separatist, they would still be far more devoted to Canada than Harper ever thought of being.

I so dread these next four years.

The Neoconservative Passion for Alexis de Tocqueville

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Neoconservative doctrine was written by academics and based on the writings of scholars, from Plato to Aristotle, Locke to Rousseau, and everything in between.

But one of the scholars often quoted, is Alexis de Tocqueville, a nineteenth century political thinker, who like many shaping the minds of young neocons, was born into wealth as a member of the aristocracy.

And he wrote of poverty as a man who had never known it, only observed it, yet his 1835 Essay on Pauperism, is used to justify the right's reluctance to help the poor.

What Tocqueville saw as a basic problem, was the definition of poverty.

"Among civilized peoples, the lack of a multitude of things causes poverty... In a country where the majority is ill-clothed, ill-housed, ill-fed, who thinks of giving clean clothes, healthy food, comfortable quarters to the poor? The majority of the English, having all these things, regard their absence as a frightful misfortune; society believes itself bound to come to the aid of those who lack them.... In England, the average standard of living a man can hope for in the course of his life is higher than in any other country of the world. This greatly facilitates the extension of pauperism in that kingdom."

So poverty is a state of mind? A comparative?

If our poor people are better off than the poor in central Africa, are they really poor?

Imagine going to your boss and asking for a raise and she tells you that you are already overpaid when compared to workers in Third World countries.

But workers in Third World countries aren't spending $1.30 a litre for gas to get to work, or 8 bucks for a box of cereal.

The definition of poverty has to be relative to how the rest of the population lives.

I'm not a socialist, and don't believe that if one family has a wide screen TV, then all families should have a wide screen TV.

However, I do believe that in a country with such vast natural resources as Canada, that everyone should be clothed, fed and housed. And everyone should have equal access to healthcare and education.

Neoconservatives do not.

David Frum is right when he says that government should never protect us "against the miseries caused by idleness", but is wrong when he says that only the indigent, or most destitute in society should be helped by government.

Remember the old Chinese proverb: “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.”

Neocons believe in the power and responsibility of the individual. Striving for equality will only bring those better off down to the level of those with very little. And they use that philosophy to justify pandering to the rich and ignoring the poor. A plantation mentality where the rich, (whose wealth is proof that they are smarter and more deserving than most), will in turn, take care of the poor.

What rot.

But it's that rot that determines Stephen Harper's actions.

“These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.”(Stephen Harper, The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

I'm very concerned with the approaching perfect storm in Ontario. A Harper majority (with a cabinet of many ex Mike Harris disciples), Harris protege Tim Hudak, (whose wife Deb Hutton was Harris's gatekeeper), as premier of the province and Rob Ford as mayor of Toronto.

Like most neoconservative governments, Mike Harris's created the highest number of homeless people in the history of our province. And what was worse, he didn't care. One of his henchmen, Jim Flaherty, simply suggested that we throw them all in jail.

And if a person froze to death living in their car, at least they had a car.

Ford is already talking about selling off public housing in Toronto. Maybe he hopes to drive the poor out of his city, but will only drive them into the streets.



Hudak wants to eliminate or drastically reduce the public service, suggesting that because they make a good wage, small businesses can't compete with government in the labour market. What the fool doesn't realize is that those good wages keep many small businesses afloat.

When Mike Harris ran Ontario, we had a Liberal government federally. When Brian Mulroney was prime minister, we had Liberal and NDP governments in Ontario.

If Hudak takes Ontario, there will be no counterweight.

It's absolutely terrifying.

Where Will Rob Ford Send His Homeless People?

The big news in Toronto this week is Rob Ford's plans to sell off public housing. You knew it was coming, and the time is ripe with the Public Housing board in disarray and Ford threatening to dismantle it.

Of course this has real estate developers "salivating" with the opportunity to cash in on this windfall. But what will it mean for those who will be forced to move out? The new redneck mayor is promising a 'shelter allowance' in lieu of subsidized rent, but how much of an allowance would he be prepared to give?

This is another attack on the poor. According to the authors of Persistent Poverty: Voices From the Margins, the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment in Toronto is $1,134 per month. And since many of those living in public housing are families, they would have difficulty living in less.

The working poor making minimum wage, barely earn enough to cover that, before paying for food, clothing and other basic necessities. Those on social assistance are allotted $791.00 per month maximum, and that's only if you have children, and 358.00 as a "basic living allowance".

One of Rob Ford's campaign promises was to deal with the "immigration problem", and we know that many of Canada's poor are immigrants. Is putting an end to public housing part of that strategy?

When Ralph Klein was premier of Alberta, he announced that:

"Bums, creeps and unskilled workers are not welcome. We will use cowboy techniques to deal with people who rob our banks, add to our welfare rolls, add to our unemployment lines and create rising crime rates." (1)

And as part of that strategy he provided those "bums, creeps and unskilled workers" with bus tickets to British Columbia. Mike Harris in Ontario also toyed with the idea of shipping out our "undesirables".

Klein eventually had to stop, when the BC premier complained that he was also sending them convicted criminals.

But what happens if there is a mass exodus of the disenfranchised? It may solve Rob Ford's problem, but what will it mean to other communities already hard pressed to provide the very basic necessities to its citizens, many victims of the recent Wall Street created "economic crisis"?

But then a few people will get filthy rich and isn't that what's really important?

Maybe Don Cherry will put them up.

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2 4, Pg. 52

Rightwing Ideology: Life Begins at Conception But Ends at Birth

"These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (Stephen Harper, The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

Gloria Steinem was on Bill Maher this week and they were discussing rightwing/Tea Party ideology.

Their latest protests centre on the abortion issue, and the recent drive to force those considering abortion to have a sonogram first. The idea of course is the belief that once a pregnant woman or girl hears her baby's heartbeat, she will change her mind.

The Tea Party/conservative movement is nothing if not a lesson in paradox, because while they demand that the government stays out of their lives, they are forcing government intervention on the lives of women.

They are even holding public rallies with a pregnant woman on stage hooked up to a sonogram, and a voice over of the baby talking to the crowd.

But Steinem made a very compelling statement, when it comes to the rightwing and the abortion issue. She said that for them "life begins at conception and ends at birth". That's it in a nutshell. Because the new 'right' philosophy is all about ending social programs. They don't care about poverty. In their judgement if you're poor it's because you're lazy.

They just want those babies born.

In 2006 Michael Ignatieff wrote a piece for MacLeans magazine in which he said, in part:

Canadians have created a distinctly progressive political culture in North America. We believe in universal rights of access to publicly funded health care; we believe in the protection of group rights to language; in group rights to self-determination for Aboriginal peoples; we believe in the equality rights of all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, including rights to marriage. Strong majorities of Canadians believe that while abortion should be rare, it should be a protected right for all women. (1)

Few challenged his statements because they were a fair representation of who we are as Canadians. And our views have not really changed, as a recent survey suggests. What has changed is a politicians ability to express those views.

When Ignatieff suggested that Canada's maternal health initiative should include safe abortions, he was accused of promoting eugenics, suggesting that he was trying to decrease the black African population, forgetting that unsafe abortions are doing just that. It has been established that 36,000 women die annually from unsafe abortions in Africa. Good child bearing women, something tea party logic should be fighting against happening.

Many of these women were raped, as that is increasingly becoming common as a weapon of war. Something our foreign service can no longer speak of due to the change in the language of our foreign policy. According to Adrian Bradbury with DFAT:

Make no mistake, these semantic changes represent fundamental shifts to Canadian foreign policy. Each of the banned or altered terms carry with it significant policy implications, most related to the international human rights agenda. For example, when speaking of the war in the DRC, where upwards of 3 million people have been killed, and rape is widely used as a tool of war, the terms "impunity" and "justice" can no longer be used when calling for an end to, and punishment for, sexual violence.

And the Harper government has also reduced foreign aid to Africa, so again, their interest in a woman's reproductive rights, end at birth.

The abortion issue discussed on Bill Maher, included the Tea Party/conservatives attack on Planned Parenthood. And while only 2% of PP's mandate includes abortion, it is estimated that if it is dismantled, abortions would actually increase by about 40,00 a year.

In Canada, Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day have already eliminated funding to this organization. In 2006, they received $1,285,674 in federal grants, while in 2009, only $9,381.

Furthermore, Conservative Brad Trost circulated a petition to go after the International Planned Parenthood Federation in November of 2009 and in 2010:

One of the world’s biggest health-care providers for vulnerable women appears to have fallen victim to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s zero tolerance policy on abortion. In London, International Planned Parenthood Federation is waiting for a call from Canada that will preserve life-saving programs that help 31 million women and children.

Again this is very short sighted, and yet another case where ideology trumps factual information.

Because of organizations like Planned Parenthood in Canada , between 1996 and 2006, the abortion rate in young women, saw a sharp decline. Canada’s teen birth and abortion rate drops by 36.9 per cent. Preaching abstinence doesn't work.

So if the Tea Party/conservative movement was serious about tackling the abortion issue, they would promote safe sex, the eradication of child poverty and income disparity.

And if you think that in 2006, Michael Ignatieff was only saying what he thought we wanted to hear to get elected, this is what he wrote of poverty in 2000, just three years after Stephen Harper boasted that he was a rare public figure who wasn't afraid to speak out against public money going to fight child poverty.

.... abundant societies that could actually solve the problem of poverty seem to care less about doing so than societies of scarcity that can't. This paradox may help to explain why the rights revolution of the past forty years has made inequalities of gender, race, and sexual orientation visible, while the older inequalities of class and income have dropped out of the registers of indignation. Abundance has awakened us to denials of self while blinding us to poverty. We idly suppose that the poor have disappeared. They haven't. They've merely become invisible. (2)

Another fundamental difference between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.

Sources:

1. Michael Ignatieff: what I would do if I were the Prime Minister: From Afghanistan to Quebec, education to the environment, Ignatieff lays out his bold, progressive vision for Canada. A Maclean's exclusive, September 01, 2006

2. The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, Pg. 92

How Rob Ford's Tea Party Will Hurt Conservative Candidates Like Alicia Gordon

Rob Ford is announcing another Canadian right-wing AstroTurf "Taxpayer" advocacy group. Ho hum.

He's calling it the first of it's kind and suggesting that it will represent centre-right issues. The Tea Party and all of these similar groups have three things in common:

1. They promote privatization so are always funded by corporations.

2. They represent far-right causes and the only thing 'centre' about them is the centre of the last donut Ford ate, and the centre of the Republican Party who usually writes their policies.

3. They are not new but part of a major network of right-wing AstroTurf groups posing as populism.

Harper didn't get his Fox News North so he's hoping this will ease some of his pain.

A few other right-wing, Astro-Turf groups behind Stephen Harper and the right-wing movement (partial list) include:

National Citizens Coalitions

Ontarians for Responsible Government

Canadian Taxpayers Federation

ProudToBeCanadian (mostly old Reformers and Ann Coulter) You'll have a hard time finding anything Canadian about this group. They even sport an American flag and the Tea Party

The Civitas Society (grew out of the old Northern Foundation)

Progressive Group for Independent Business

The Canadian Constitution Foundation

The Canadian Christian Coalition

Hamilton-based Work Research Foundation

TaxTyranny.ca

Americans for Prosperty (Tea Party group)

Christian Legal Fellowship

REAL Women of Canada

And this is before we get into the think tanks.

In Kingston, Ontario, the Conservative candidate, Alicia Gordon, is presenting herself as a moderate conservative, even suggesting that she will be running on a campaign of strengthening social services. (stop laughing dammit. Every time I say that, the earth shakes from so many belly laughs.)

But Ford reminds Canadians that Harper's party is more tea party, than any kind of conservatism we've ever had in Canada before. It is rumoured that Don Cherry will be promoting Gordon. Don Cherry of "left-wing pinko" fame.

Ford is also suggesting that left wingers include environmental groups. Since when has protecting the environment been a left wing issue?

Ford's Tea party will campaign against everything that is important to Canadians. At a time of record debt and deficit, tax reduction should not be made a priority. Proper use of tax money is a much better initiative.

I hope his tea party is loud and proud. It will be like taking candy from a baby.

Way to go Don Cherry. I hope You're Proud of Yourself

After calling any of us who care about the plight of workers in Rob Ford's Toronto, 'Left-wing Pinkos', Don Cherry must be so proud of the mess that he has helped to create.

And while I don't agree with some of Thomas Walkom's column on the subject, he does make a good point, when discussing the private firm that will get rich off this:

Ostensibly the attack on unions is driven by fairness: We hurt, therefore you should too. In fact, it’s driven by resentment. When Holyday says that Toronto city workers earn more than those who pay taxes, he’s not being technically accurate. Plenty of Torontonians make more money than civic employees.

But he’s tapping into a sense of class snobbery among those who think that garbage collectors deserve no more than the barest minimum.

Walkom suggests that the city will save money. They never do. They just change the dynamics of the money earned, from workers to owners.

Many successful people will include in their bios the fact that they are the son/daughter of mill workers or labourers. But they forget that their parents had good union jobs that they were able to have for decades. And those good union jobs provided benefits, like dental plans, so that they didn't have to go to job interviews as adults, with bad teeth. Or chronic coughs from living in damp houses all their lives.

And the pay from those jobs went back into the economy, helping to increase the service sector. Many students worked their way through university or college working in restaurants. Now former union workers are taking those jobs, which has had an impact on student employment.

As Walkom says:

Still, for most Canadians, the attack on unions is self-defeating. To a large extent, the North American middle class exists because of unions. As unions disappear, income disparities grow, poverty increases and society becomes more insecure. The U.S. is evidence of this.

And as expected, the people are fighting back:

"Rod Ford’s Budget Committee is right now working out the details of the opening round of his attack on poor and working people in this City. Ford campaigned on the basis of stopping the ‘gravy train’ at City Hall, but his Budget plans show how exactly he defines ‘gravy’," the group says on its website."The proposed cuts are real and they are deep - this is the information we have managed to gather so far, but can imagine are only the tip of the iceberg."

It's Mike Harris all over again. And the Ford crew are just as callous, with Rob's brother Doug telling them to get a job.

If Don Cherry was any kind of human being he would stand in solidarity with those workers. After all, he owes much of his success to the working class. But he's joined the Corporate Welfare State, so instead just snubs his nose at them.

He should be ashamed. I was once proud that he came from Kingston. Now I wish he'd say he came from somewhere else. Like maybe the bowels of Hell.

A Just Society? Really? For Whom?

There is an excellent column in the Star today by John Cartwright, President of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council: Corporate greed is eroding foundations of a just society

There has been a lot of discussion about income disparity recently, as we are recreating the conditions just prior to the Great Depression.

Cartwright reminds us of how this is affecting the working class, when 'corporate culture demands that pension plans be gutted, benefits weakened and jobs outsourced.'

Brian Topp wrote a piece yesterday on Don Cherry and his recent nonsense at the inauguration of Toronto's new mayor Rob Ford. One millionaire speaking up for another millionaire.

But as Cartwright points out: 'Rob Ford promises to outsource city cleaning services to contractors who pay poverty wages. And he claims to be “standing up for the little guy.”'

So while Topp rightfully suggests that the millionaire Cherry is pretending to speak for the "little guy", he is actually complicit in the demise of that "little guy."

All the more reason to contact CBC and complain.

There is a group of prominent and progressive Americans calling for action, demanding that Obama get back on track.

I mean tax cuts? Really? He should be talking tax increases for those who have benefited the most from a series of misguided tax cuts, that helped to create this enormous disparity.

Some of the wealthiest are pledging to give away their fortunes to charity, but the antagonism of that statement is "charity". They made their fortunes only because the working class was burdened with most of the taxes, yet the first to hurt when things got tough.

This is not "charity" but the paying back of a debt.

So if millionaires like Don Cherry really want to help, they might want to get off their high horse and look around them.

Because the only ones really speaking up for the "little guy" are us "left-wing Pinkos".

Why Does Toronto Need 100 More Police Officers?

Canada's Tea Party member, Rob Ford, the new mayor of Toronto is planning on hiring 100 more police officers, saying that you can't have too many police. I beg to differ.

After their horrible display at the G-20 there are a few too many in the ranks.

And even the police chief disagrees Ford.

In keeping with his “never enough” approach, however, Ford reaffirmed in a radio interview this week that he will move ahead with his campaign promise to hire 100 new police officers, at a cost of 10 million a year. It appears to be a top priority for Ford. But Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair says it is “premature” to discuss officer deployment. Blair is surely right, given that we have not yet had a broader look at the police budget. Alok Mukherjee, chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, has also noted that it wouldn’t be easy to train that many officers all at once, given limited police college space.

I guess Harper and Ford can only base their manhood on the size of their riot squads.

And speaking of riot squads, why isn't Fantino willing to tell us what he spent 100 million dollars on for the weekend from hell?

It's Like Looking in a Mirror - For Ralph Klein

When former Calgary mayor, Ralph Klein, was premier of Alberta he stated that "Bums, creeps and unskilled workers are not welcome. We will use cowboy techniques to deal with people who rob our banks, add to our welfare rolls, add to our unemployment lines and create rising crime rates." (1) He made being redneck cool.

And indeed he followed through on his threats, and started shipping the unemployed out, giving them a bus ticket and a "don't come back now ya' hear".

But when he threw a convicted stalker on a bus to Victoria, then B.C. Justice Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, said enough was enough. He couldn't solve his problems by simply giving them to someone else.

His drinking, cussing and questionable behaviour were legendary. (2)

But a lot has happened since then, and Calgary now has a young and progressive mayor. And a Muslim to boot. They are now cool.

But sadly, Toronto went the other way, electing a knucklehead Rob Ford, who won the election on promising to throw thousands of people out of work and putting immigrants in their place.

Jim Flaherty endorsed him ... enough said.

After his victory, Ford was seen at the bus station ticket counter, pulling a wagon. Look out Alberta. He may be sending them to you. Sigh.

And Toronto also has a new theme song. I don't drink but may have to take it up.

Rob Ford calls this "They's a teeeer in ma' baeeer ... " Yee Haw!




Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2 4, Pg. 52

2. Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, pg. 60-62

Did Jim Flaherty Give Rob Ford the Kiss of Death?

Rob Ford was leading into the polls and positioned to be the next mayor of Toronto. A bad move for Toronto, a vibrant city and tourist draw.

Ford would have fit in well with Mike Harris. But Ontario is still struggling to forget those horrible years and having our largest city in the grips of a neocon knucklehead is not the way to go.

This man has no ideas except to reduce taxes and increase the city's unemployed.

But it seems that since Jim Flaherty gave him a ringing endorsement, Torontonians woke up and said "what the hell?"

Jim Flaherty? One of the causes of our financial problems. Not bloody likely.

Now Ford is losing steam. Let's hope it continues.

His stances on things like immigration, make him no better than Donald Andrews. The only difference is that Andrews admits to being racist.

This is not the way for Toronto to go.